If the government were to provide for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority, seeing to it that each one was able to attain their full individual potential for success, then would other factors still need to be corrected for in order to assure they each had their fair shot at achieving the "American dream" upon entering the competitive adult world?

On a more micro level there are always going to be things that people want which they can't get, for reasons beyond basic needs. But that might be on too small of a scale for what you're saying. For your macro American dream type idea, I'm not so sure. It's presumable that what I said could happen on a larger level, but it's probably less likely.

At 9/4/2011 4:41:19 PM, Just1Voice wrote:If the government were to provide for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority, seeing to it that each one was able to attain their full individual potential for success, then would other factors still need to be corrected for in order to assure they each had their fair shot at achieving the "American dream" upon entering the competitive adult world?

If so, what other factors?

You would need someone to arbitrate what a fair shot was, and also what an American Dream was.

How trusting are you in authority?

Crying about how much the Trump wall is going to cost is like a heroin addict complaining about how much the needles cost.

At 9/4/2011 4:41:19 PM, Just1Voice wrote:If the government were to provide for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority, seeing to it that each one was able to attain their full individual potential for success, then would other factors still need to be corrected for in order to assure they each had their fair shot at achieving the "American dream" upon entering the competitive adult world?

If so, what other factors?

You would need someone to arbitrate what a fair shot was, and also what an American Dream was.

In my opinion it is not possible to be more fair than to see to it every persons ability to achieve success is maximized according to their own individual potential. At that point they are limited only by factors which society cannot ethically control, such as genetics, personal ambition, and dumb luck.

The "American Dream" is generally defined as two conditions: The ability to see your children have it better than you did, and the ability to achieve personal goals through hard work and perseverance. The second of these is necessarily limited by individual potential. Nothing to be done about that. Enforced homogeneity of potential is a terrible idea. However, it is in our power to reduce all other factors to statistical insignificance, and our society as a whole would see a lot less conflict if this was the case.

How trusting are you in authority?

To be honest, not very. But such a program creates an automatic safeguard to authoritarian rule because it necessarily places high emphasis on critical thinking skills. It will result in a generation far more resistant to manipulation than our current population.

At 9/5/2011 1:06:58 AM, LeafRod wrote:On a more micro level there are always going to be things that people want which they can't get, for reasons beyond basic needs. But that might be on too small of a scale for what you're saying. For your macro American dream type idea, I'm not so sure. It's presumable that what I said could happen on a larger level, but it's probably less likely.

Admittedly there is a drawback to this kind of program in that it's not really possible to test it on a small scale. It is designed for a global society with a high level of technology. Such a program would have been impossible 20 years ago.

Of course there will always be some people whose potential for success is less than their ambition and/or willingness to work for it. It's unfortunate, but we really can't justify holding everyone else back over it. We just have to admit that we are going to need some amount of "bread and circuses" to distract such people from that ugly truth about themselves. Ethically, it is the best we can offer.

It's inherently unfair to steal something from someone who earned it and give it to every child who didn't.

The playing field (once govt theft is out of the picture) works like this: You get whatever you can produce in the wilderness unless you can convince someone else to give you more, probably by providing value to them.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 9/5/2011 4:02:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:It's inherently unfair to steal something from someone who earned it and give it to every child who didn't.

The playing field (once govt theft is out of the picture) works like this: You get whatever you can produce in the wilderness unless you can convince someone else to give you more, probably by providing value to them.

I did not ever mention stealing a thing from anyone. In fact, no mention of how the government might accomplish such a program has even been alluded to. This discussion is not about that. It is about what such a program might allow us to improve, and what it might not improve, in way of social justice.

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft, this statement concerning theft is irrelevant to this discussion.

As to the second statement, I am afraid I am going to need some clarification. What do you mean by "wilderness?"

And at what point a persons development do you imagine them stepping onto such a playing field?

At 9/5/2011 4:02:35 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:It's inherently unfair to steal something from someone who earned it and give it to every child who didn't.

The playing field (once govt theft is out of the picture) works like this: You get whatever you can produce in the wilderness unless you can convince someone else to give you more, probably by providing value to them.

I did not ever mention stealing a thing from anyone.

It always comes down to that. That is how welfare states provide this things.

In fact, no mention of how the government might accomplish such a program has even been alluded to.

That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft

The existence of a welfare state NECESSARILY implies taxes (not the existence of a government, but the mere existence of a government is not tantamount to providing "for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority" in ths first place.

As to the second statement, I am afraid I am going to need some clarification. What do you mean by "wilderness?"

That land which has not been improved by other humans.

And at what point a persons development do you imagine them stepping onto such a playing field?

It's where they all start. If as infants they coo cutely enough at their parents to be a keeper, that's when they step to the other part :P. If not, scrabble away it is, and if they don't stay of value to those parents, the same till they find a new patron.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 9/5/2011 4:17:15 PM, Just1Voice wrote:I did not ever mention stealing a thing from anyone.

It always comes down to that. That is how welfare states provide this things.

When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"? If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

In fact, no mention of how the government might accomplish such a program has even been alluded to.

That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

No, it's not. That part of the program is left out intentionally because it is first necessary to establish the value of such a program before determining it's cost or how to pay for it.

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft

The existence of a welfare state NECESSARILY implies taxes (not the existence of a government, but the mere existence of a government is not tantamount to providing "for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority" in ths first place.

Taxation is not stealing. It is a business transaction. You are receiving valuable services for your tax dollar. You may not agree with the amount of value you receive, but if you don't like it you are free to leave the country and to seek another government to provide you what you consider to be a more even exchange.

As to the second statement, I am afraid I am going to need some clarification. What do you mean by "wilderness?"

That land which has not been improved by other humans.

And at what point a persons development do you imagine them stepping onto such a playing field?

It's where they all start. If as infants they coo cutely enough at their parents to be a keeper, that's when they step to the other part :P. If not, scrabble away it is, and if they don't stay of value to those parents, the same till they find a new patron.

These rules you are putting forth are not a part of our social contract. Infants do not get to choose whether or not to participate. Their participation is forced upon them and they have very little control over it at least until they reach the age of majority. Moreover, these rules you How do you propose an infant is going to find land not improved by other humans? I am afraid that the playing field you envision no longer exists.

At 9/5/2011 4:56:40 PM, Just1Voice wrote:Moreover, these rules you How do you propose an infant is going to find land not improved by other humans? I am afraid that the playing field you envision no longer exists.

It's terribly inconvenient having no edit option on these boards. Strike the partial phrase "Moreover, these rules you..."

At 9/5/2011 4:56:40 PM, Just1Voice wrote:When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"? If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

No.

If people up and changed the constitution to say that people over 7 feet tall will have their left foot cut off.... and some tall guy stayed b/c he had family or property or some kind of sentimental interest here.. and then the government came and cut off his foot.. I Certainly wouldn't say he had Agreed to have his foot cut off.

you're a dummy ;)

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 9/5/2011 4:17:15 PM, Just1Voice wrote:I did not ever mention stealing a thing from anyone.

It always comes down to that. That is how welfare states provide this things.

When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"?

No, that's a justification clause not a legal clause.

If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

False, I was born here, and the US gov't does not legitimately own the entire landmass of this country anyway and hence has no right to set such terms for living there. No more than you agree to burglary by staying in your house knowing that burglars exist.

In fact, no mention of how the government might accomplish such a program has even been alluded to.

That's a sign of intellectual dishonesty on your part.

No, it's not. That part of the program is left out intentionally because it is first necessary to establish the value of such a program before determining it's cost or how to pay for it.

The net value or the gross?

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft

The existence of a welfare state NECESSARILY implies taxes (not the existence of a government, but the mere existence of a government is not tantamount to providing "for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority" in ths first place.

Taxation is not stealing. It is a business transaction. You are receiving valuable services for your tax dollar.

False. There are absolutely no services contingent on whether you pay your taxation. The government does not attempt to cajole you to pay your taxes by offering services in exchange (that would be a user fee, such as a toll bridge as opposed to tax funded bridges). It simply jails you if you don't pay, whether you get the services or not. And, indeed, the more taxes you pay the fewer services you receive (unless you have really severe lobbyists), such is the nature of the welfare state.

You may not agree with the amount of value you receive, but if you don't like it you are free to leave the country and to seek another government to provide you what you consider to be a more even exchange.

Even did the government have ownership so as to enable such a take it or leave it argument (it doesn't,) it has an active history of invading other countries. Perhaps as a result, perhaps not (I don't think so but some do), no place to be free exists.

These rules you are putting forth are not a part of our social contract.

They are rules of nature. Social contracts are a contradiction.

Moreover, these rules you How do you propose an infant is going to find land not improved by other humans? I am afraid that the playing field you envision no longer exists.

There's plenty of it, federal claims to land don't mean that land improves (and when you die intestate your property reverts to wilderness so...).

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

At 9/5/2011 4:56:40 PM, Just1Voice wrote:When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"? If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

No.

If people up and changed the constitution to say that people over 7 feet tall will have their left foot cut off.... and some tall guy stayed b/c he had family or property or some kind of sentimental interest here.. and then the government came and cut off his foot.. I Certainly wouldn't say he had Agreed to have his foot cut off.

No one changed the preamble of the U.S. Constitution. That is what it has always said. In any case, family is portable and property is salable. Assuming you are an adult, nothing is keeping you here against your will. Staying in the country when you believe that your rights are being violated by it's government requires that you either take up arms in your defense or else accept the laws imposed on you (perhaps with the hope that they will be changed at some point).

you're a dummy ;)

Now that's just mean spirited. This is a friendly discussion. If you don't like it, then don't participate, but there is no cause to throw insults around at this point. Your assertion proves only that you are ill-mannered.

At 9/5/2011 4:56:40 PM, Just1Voice wrote:When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"?

No, that's a justification clause not a legal clause.

My point exactly. The government has not actually assumed primary responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens and so it is is not a welfare state, no matter how the politicians on the right try to portray it.see link: http://www.merriam-webster.com...

If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

False, I was born here, and the US gov't does not legitimately own the entire landmass of this country anyway and hence has no right to set such terms for living there. No more than you agree to burglary by staying in your house knowing that burglars exist.

Since it's not a welfare state, this whole argument is moot, but I would like to point out that your argument is a false comparison. You have received the value of governmental services already. In refusing to pay your taxes you are, in effect, stealing from the government. In order to refuse the services the government provides, you would have to leave the country and renounce your citizenship.

No, it's not. That part of the program is left out intentionally because it is first necessary to establish the value of such a program before determining it's cost or how to pay for it.

The net value or the gross?

Obviously gross value must be determined first. One cannot determine net value until the cost has been deducted.

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft

The existence of a welfare state NECESSARILY implies taxes (not the existence of a government, but the mere existence of a government is not tantamount to providing "for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority" in ths first place.

But, as we have seen, this is not a welfare state, and assuming responsibility for the welfare of children is not assuming the responsibility for the welfare of citizens. The children are not all the citizens, nor are all the children necessarily citizens themselves. So again, you point is moot.

Taxation is not stealing. It is a business transaction. You are receiving valuable services for your tax dollar.

False. There are absolutely no services contingent on whether you pay your taxation. The government does not attempt to cajole you to pay your taxes by offering services in exchange (that would be a user fee, such as a toll bridge as opposed to tax funded bridges). It simply jails you if you don't pay, whether you get the services or not. And, indeed, the more taxes you pay the fewer services you receive (unless you have really severe lobbyists), such is the nature of the welfare state.

As anyone who studied U.S. History knows, you do receive representation (a service) in the government in return for the taxes you pay. It was the lack of representation that caused the revolution that led to the formation of our government in the first place.

You may not agree with the amount of value you receive, but if you don't like it you are free to leave the country and to seek another government to provide you what you consider to be a more even exchange.

Even did the government have ownership so as to enable such a take it or leave it argument (it doesn't,) it has an active history of invading other countries. Perhaps as a result, perhaps not (I don't think so but some do), no place to be free exists.

Somalia.

These rules you are putting forth are not a part of our social contract.

They are rules of nature. Social contracts are a contradiction.

Contradiction of what? The laws of nature? I certainly hope so. Those laws suck. We human beings are social creatures. Our social contract is a part of us. "No man is an island." To reject the social contract is to reject your membership in humanity.

Moreover, these rules you How do you propose an infant is going to find land not improved by other humans? I am afraid that the playing field you envision no longer exists.

There's plenty of it, federal claims to land don't mean that land improves (and when you die intestate your property reverts to wilderness so...).

At 9/5/2011 5:16:20 PM, Just1Voice wrote:Staying in the country when you believe that your rights are being violated by it's government requires that you either take up arms in your defense or else accept the laws imposed on you (perhaps with the hope that they will be changed at some point).

no.. I don't think so.

One might stay, and Not take up arms... and Not agree to be bound by the law that they feel unjust... and instead simply hope to not be persecuted.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

At 9/5/2011 4:56:40 PM, Just1Voice wrote:When the U.S. Constitution was established, the preamble specified "promote the general Welfare" among the purposes the government should serve. Does this automatically make it a "welfare state"?

No, that's a justification clause not a legal clause.

My point exactly. The government has not actually assumed primary responsibility for the welfare of it's citizens and so it is is not a welfare state

That's not what welfare state means. A welfare state is one that gives out money to citizens regarded as entitled by need or anything other than payment for services rendered, by taxing it from other citizens. See Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, AFDC, etc.

If so, then you are agreeing to be stolen from, merely by continuing to live here as a citizen.

False, I was born here, and the US gov't does not legitimately own the entire landmass of this country anyway and hence has no right to set such terms for living there. No more than you agree to burglary by staying in your house knowing that burglars exist.

Since it's not a welfare state, this whole argument is moot

The argument is fundamentally about taxes.

but I would like to point out that your argument is a false comparison. You have received the value of governmental services already. In refusing to pay your taxes you are, in effect, stealing from the government.

False. If I mow your lawn without permission and my demands for payment are ignored, you are not stealing from me. In point of fact, I stole grass from you.

In order to refuse the services the government provides, you would have to leave the country and renounce your citizenship.

"In order to refuse my lawnmowing, you would have to leave your house and lawn behind."

Unless it is your contention that the mere existence of a government is tantamount to theft

The existence of a welfare state NECESSARILY implies taxes (not the existence of a government, but the mere existence of a government is not tantamount to providing "for 100% of the needs (health, nutrition, education, & security) of every child, no matter what their background, from birth to the age of majority" in ths first place.

But, as we have seen, this is not a welfare state

As we have seen this is nonsense.

and assuming responsibility for the welfare of children is not assuming the responsibility for the welfare of citizens. The children are not all the citizens, nor are all the children necessarily citizens themselves

How so and why should I care? Most importantly, IT STILL REQUIRES TAXES WHICH IS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You're casting semanticaga on the extraneous bits.

Taxation is not stealing. It is a business transaction. You are receiving valuable services for your tax dollar.

False. There are absolutely no services contingent on whether you pay your taxation. The government does not attempt to cajole you to pay your taxes by offering services in exchange (that would be a user fee, such as a toll bridge as opposed to tax funded bridges). It simply jails you if you don't pay, whether you get the services or not. And, indeed, the more taxes you pay the fewer services you receive (unless you have really severe lobbyists), such is the nature of the welfare state.

As anyone who studied U.S. History knows, you do receive representation (a service) in the government in return for the taxes you pay.

This is an argument from intimidation. I receive no representation, it is not a service, if it were a service I would never purchase it. Furthermore, it bears no relation to my paying taxes-- someone who pays more taxes than me receives no more votes.

It was the lack of representation that caused the revolution that led to the formation of our government in the first place.

Completely irrelevant.

You may not agree with the amount of value you receive, but if you don't like it you are free to leave the country and to seek another government to provide you what you consider to be a more even exchange.

Even did the government have ownership so as to enable such a take it or leave it argument (it doesn't,) it has an active history of invading other countries. Perhaps as a result, perhaps not (I don't think so but some do), no place to be free exists.

Somalia.

The warfare of competing attempts at government is neither a lack of government nor a minarchy. Regardless, ignoring the first and more important clause.

These rules you are putting forth are not a part of our social contract.

They are rules of nature. Social contracts are a contradiction.

Contradiction of what?

Of what a contract is. A contract occurs between and only between agreeing parties-- the moment something affects a party that doesn't agree to it, you don't have a contract, you have a dictate. There might be a related contract by other parties, but no contract between you and Bob gives either of you a right to a drop of my blood.

We human beings are social creatures.

Speak for yourself

Our social contract is a part of us.

No such thing exists or can exist.

"No man is an island."

Irrelevant.

To reject the social contract is to reject your membership in humanity.

A human is a rational animal. A social animal is an ant. They don't have a social contract, mind-- there's no room for something like contracts in their totally social nature, contracts are a product of interaction between rational INDIVIDUALS with differing interests. Anything that isn't an agreement between all individuals involved is not a contract.

Moreover, these rules you How do you propose an infant is going to find land not improved by other humans? I am afraid that the playing field you envision no longer exists.

There's plenty of it, federal claims to land don't mean that land improves (and when you die intestate your property reverts to wilderness so...).

And an infant is going to claim this land how, exactly?

Mix their labor with it, or not, attract parents/guardians with their cuteness, or not. It's none of my concern.

It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.

Geez, if you won't even accept Websters as a source for definitions you aren't going to get far in any kind of debate. This is strong evidence that you are unable to accept that a perspective outside your own exists.

The argument is fundamentally about taxes.

The thread is about resolving artificially imposed social inequalities by seeing to it everyone enters adulthood as prepared to compete as possible. Taxes, as I have tried to point out, are not yet a part of the discussion.

In order to refuse the services the government provides, you would have to leave the country and renounce your citizenship.

"In order to refuse my lawnmowing, you would have to leave your house and lawn behind."

You can disagree with the reality of the world all you wish, it will not change what is.

and assuming responsibility for the welfare of children is not assuming the responsibility for the welfare of citizens. The children are not all the citizens, nor are all the children necessarily citizens themselves

How so and why should I care? Most importantly, IT STILL REQUIRES TAXES WHICH IS THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You're casting semanticaga on the extraneous bits.

Why should you care? It's called "posterity" and it's another of the reasons we created the government in this country in the way we did. You currently have no control over the conditions into which your descendants are born. They could be wealthy, but that is unlikely. In fact, the odds are much greater that a good number of them will be poor, or even poverty stricken. If you care at all about what happens to your own grandchildren or great-grandchildren, the perhaps you will see that such a program is insurance that they will get a fair shot at having a happy and successful life.

As anyone who studied U.S. History knows, you do receive representation (a service) in the government in return for the taxes you pay.

This is an argument from intimidation. I receive no representation, it is not a service, if it were a service I would never purchase it. Furthermore, it bears no relation to my paying taxes-- someone who pays more taxes than me receives no more votes.

Nevertheless you are being represented. That is reality. Your perspective on the matter makes no difference.

We human beings are social creatures.

Speak for yourself

Our social contract is a part of us.

No such thing exists or can exist.

"No man is an island."

Irrelevant.

Now you are just being contrary for the sake of being contrary. Your perspective on these statements shows only that you are ignorant of the realities of the human condition. You have no credibility to back up your statements, whereas mine have centuries of serious discussion by some of the greatest thinkers of any age behind them. You are outmatched.

And an infant is going to claim this land how, exactly?

Mix their labor with it, or not, attract parents/guardians with their cuteness, or not. It's none of my concern.

It may not be your concern, now. you are too young. It appears you lack the ability to understand what this thread is actually about.

At 9/6/2011 1:01:44 AM, FREEDO wrote:There is no American dream and there never was one. And I don't see anything good in entering a "competitive adult world".

There is and has been an American dream. Your lack of familiarity with it does not mean it never existed. The plethora of references to it proves this.

I don't recall ever positing that a "competitive adult world" was a good thing. It does, however, exist and it is the reality of our situation here in the U.S.

Certainly we would each be better off upon entering it if we were as prepared to deal with that reality as we could individually be. Currently the majority of people entering that world are unprepared for it, and that has been the cause of a great deal of conflict. I am simply looking for solutions.

One might stay, and Not take up arms... and Not agree to be bound by the law that they feel unjust... and instead simply hope to not be persecuted.

Ok, yes, there is that. Still not an attractive option.

Neither is abandoning a home and neighborhood or culture which you are attached to.

Agreed. It seems clear that the way we have institutionalized our social contract is flawed to some degree.

However, my contention remains that humanity is social, that our government is that portion of the social contract which has been institutionalized, and while this has undeniably limited choices, it is to everyone's benefit to maintain it. Taxation is the process which we have used to institutionalize that maintenance.

The alternative to this is the breakdown of the social contract. Examples of what happens when the social contract is broken are: the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Watts Riots, the situation in Somalia, and the recent riots in the UK.

When individuals lose faith in the social contract, it is certainly a danger and a problem that should be addressed, but when the mob loses faith in the social contract, it breaks (at least temporarily) and the result is violence and anarchy. If you believe that you would be better off without a social contract I urge you to imagine yourself in the middle of any of the above-mentioned events, and ask the question "Am I better off here than I was living as a taxpaying citizen of the U.S.?"

One might stay, and Not take up arms... and Not agree to be bound by the law that they feel unjust... and instead simply hope to not be persecuted.

Ok, yes, there is that. Still not an attractive option.

Neither is abandoning a home and neighborhood or culture which you are attached to.

Agreed. It seems clear that the way we have institutionalized our social contract is flawed to some degree.

However, my contention remains that humanity is social, that our government is that portion of the social contract which has been institutionalized, and while this has undeniably limited choices, it is to everyone's benefit to maintain it. Taxation is the process which we have used to institutionalize that maintenance.

Arguing that it's beneficial and to be supported is Different from suggesting that all people necessarily consented.

Your saying that people being there is Consent is what got you called a dummy.

The alternative to this is the breakdown of the social contract. Examples of what happens when the social contract is broken are: the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Watts Riots, the situation in Somalia, and the recent riots in the UK.

When individuals lose faith in the social contract, it is certainly a danger and a problem that should be addressed, but when the mob loses faith in the social contract, it breaks (at least temporarily) and the result is violence and anarchy. If you believe that you would be better off without a social contract I urge you to imagine yourself in the middle of any of the above-mentioned events, and ask the question "Am I better off here than I was living as a taxpaying citizen of the U.S.?"

I'm no longer one who really enjoys arguing politics.. but ..

I would care to have done what I would have done... Though given that would be quite difficult to arrange.. I am content to have a Constitutional democracy with solid protections of individual rights.. For my will is not Too far apart from the majority's will (at least not so far as it might be from some dicktator) and such a government seems fairly stable.

the Taxing bit is a tougher issue.. For I myself might wish to play with other people's money for some causes I'd support.. but I wouldn't like people taking my money for causes I wouldn't support! I also tend to think people working for their own reasons to be a driver of economic Healthiness which helps all sorts of things I would care for.All in all I'd be for taxing to support people in Dire straights, like in dire need of food, shelter(at least for kids) who for whatever reason have been incapable of getting it themselves...For not only am I compassionate.. but those people would likely Steal to get it if the opportunity arose anyhow.. and that can lead to violence against others or against them (more stuff I wouldn't much like)However other than for providing the most basic of needs I would wish to have the govt. tax very sparingly... for I don't like the idea of an oppressive government, reduction in motivation of people or inefficient services.

"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."

the Taxing bit is a tougher issue.. For I myself might wish to play with other people's money for some causes I'd support.. but I wouldn't like people taking my money for causes I wouldn't support! I also tend to think people working for their own reasons to be a driver of economic Healthiness which helps all sorts of things I would care for.All in all I'd be for taxing to support people in Dire straights, like in dire need of food, shelter(at least for kids) who for whatever reason have been incapable of getting it themselves...For not only am I compassionate.. but those people would likely Steal to get it if the opportunity arose anyhow.. and that can lead to violence against others or against them (more stuff I wouldn't much like)However other than for providing the most basic of needs I would wish to have the govt. tax very sparingly... for I don't like the idea of an oppressive government, reduction in motivation of people or inefficient services.

What do you define as basic "services?" Do you prefer Madison's interpretation, or Hamilton's interpretation of Article 1, Section 8, of the Constitution? That appears to be the crux of the contention in this part of the issue.

Once again, the thread is about what implementing the program described in the OP might do for the country. What problems would it solve, and what problems would still exist? That is all. I am asking that people really consider what it might do, say 30 years down the road, or 100 years down the road.

Maybe after we discuss that for a while, then it will be a more appropriate time to consider what that might really be worth. And what you would be willing to give to see it happen. And what you think others, particularly those who have children, or grandchildren, might do to make it happen.

Geez, if you won't even accept Websters as a source for definitions you aren't going to get far in any kind of debate.

Geez, if you won't even realize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so is equivocation, you aren't going to get far in any rational kind of debate.

The thread is about resolving artificially imposed social inequalities by seeing to it everyone enters adulthood as prepared to compete as possible. Taxes, as I have tried to point out, are not yet a part of the discussion.

Artificially imposed?The only artificially imposed part of it is the "solution." Which is inevitably about taxes.

You can disagree with the reality of the world all you wish, it will not change what is.

That's not an argument.

Why should you care? It's called "posterity"

That's not an answer.

You currently have no control over the conditions into which your descendants are born.

It's called birth control. Maybe you said something other than you meant because that sentence made no sense.

They could be wealthy, but that is unlikely. In fact, the odds are much greater that a good number of them will be poor, or even poverty stricken.

All humanity descended from abject poverty. Big deal.

If you care at all about what happens to your own grandchildren or great-grandchildren

Geez, if you won't even accept Websters as a source for definitions you aren't going to get far in any kind of debate.

Geez, if you won't even realize that appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, and so is equivocation, you aren't going to get far in any rational kind of debate.

Woah there, lil pard'ner. Back that up. Are you seriously trying to argue that Websters Dictionary does not carry enough credibility be an authority on the definition of a commonly used term? Just how high an authority on a topic does one need to have in order to pass your rigorous standards? Do you know what "Appeal to authority" really means? You might want to look for some examples of others successfully using that to refute an argument. Probably you ought to do that before you get involved in another discussion that involves defining a term.